You'll often find license agreements which state that the output of the program, your image, is owned by the maker of the software since your image is a derivative of the software and therefore the copyright is owned by the maker. I dont think this has ever been enforced in any court, and the bad PR would ban the maker's software from every corporation in the world, so no maker dares enforce it.
Re^2: Am I Allowed to Make a New Compiler/Language using Perl?
Replies are listed 'Best First'.
I think the GPL v3 comes close, or at least forces restrictions on the (distribution of) the output generated by a GPL v3 program. But I have solved this problem for me personally a long time before the GPL v3, so I haven't investigated whether that is really the case for things like a compiler. It seems to be the case for things like web application servers, where accessing the application over the web is basically identical to distribution of the application server binary.
Well, IANAL, but I can't imagine that sort of clause standing up in court in the UK. Despite what makes a good story for the newspapers, UK judges tend to apply common sense, especially in common law, which covers most of contract. They would put such clauses on a par with a saw manufacturer claiming rights over chairs. There is some statute law, but that tends to protect consumers, for example http://www.oft.gov.uk/about-the-oft/legal-powers/legal/unfair-terms/. But other countries will differ.